Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:04:43 +0300 From: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> To: Adrian Gschwend <ktk@netlabs.org> Cc: freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: iSCSI performance Message-ID: <E1KHJEp-000ChB-4N@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> In-Reply-To: <g57kqh$imm$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <g57kqh$imm$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > I finally invested some time to get iSCSI to work on FreeBSD. Now I do > have an iSCSI disk mounted in the system so I started doing some > performance tests against an NetApp FAS3020 head with an iSCSI LUN > configured for my FreeBSD 7.0-stable box. > > It's a rather old IBM server and I used sysbench to get some stats. > > The results I got were: > > local SCSI disk, UFS: > - -- > Operations performed: 5999 Read, 4001 Write, 12800 Other = 22800 Total > Read 93.734Mb Written 62.516Mb Total transferred 156.25Mb (2.2672Mb/sec) > 145.10 Requests/sec executed > - -- > > > NFS share on the NetApp (no tweaking, default NFS mount): > - -- > Operations performed: 6006 Read, 3994 Write, 12800 Other = 22800 Total > Read 93.844Mb Written 62.406Mb Total transferred 156.25Mb (11.948Mb/sec) > 764.69 Requests/sec executed > - -- > > > iSCSI with UFS: > - -- > Operations performed: 6004 Read, 3996 Write, 12800 Other = 22800 Total > Read 93.812Mb Written 62.438Mb Total transferred 156.25Mb (489.41Kb/sec) > 30.59 Requests/sec executed > - -- > > which is a rather bad results for iSCSI ;) > > Note that I didn't want to get the real performance so I just took the > default sysbench lines I found in the docs. It was just to get something > to compare to. > > Googling a bit I found this posting here: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2008-February/003383.html > > Is this patch in -CURRENT by now or do I still have to compile the stuff > on my own if I want to do some more tests? > the patches were for -STABLE, and I haven't seen them, but before the patches, try increasing the tag opening, ie camcontrol tags daX -N128 or via iscontrol (and yes it's not idiot proof, nor is is it developer proof :-) > And is anyone actively working on iSCSI right now? I do have some > proposals regarding iscontrol as well, the tool is not yet idiot proof > ;) What would be the appropriate list to post feedback regarding that? absolutely! > > next thing on my list is to try ZFS on the iSCSI share but I would like > to see some better performance on UFS first :) > > BTW in case you wonder why I want to use iSCSI: I am running a > subversion server with rather big repositories using "fsfs" on NFS and I > run into very weird PROPFIND problems (Apache frontent) when importing > large quantities of data and I don't have the problem doing the same on > a local drive of the server. So I guess that's some NFS locking stuff I > couldn't get rid of. > The idea is to replace that with iSCSI and ZFS (I love NetApps snapshot > feature and I want that too in the future, so ZFS) once both is declared > as stable (yes, I have time :) > > cu > > Adrian > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFId1d3qpMUYrZbQBERAhjfAJ96YsvsVyLgeRY3Ah54UM1jvwHKwgCeIaoM > ibhoi7c6jovvBIF/jaI5IQ8= > =mr7E > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-scsi > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-scsi-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1KHJEp-000ChB-4N>